The Best of Karl - The Friedel Top 10 edition

[Bricktop]

Karl. Following the "Laws Of The Game" is this a foul and red card offence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mEc3-Ug0Ks

[Karl]

.

Note also - that there is nowhere in the rules about a "last defender" meaning anything.

Ofcourse there is, the words "last defender" may not have been used...but the meaning says/is to ref "take note" of the positions of the last defender ...and more, it may be other defenders positions i.e. the ref may need to take note of defenders' positions relative to the person who the ref thinks has committed a foul to make a determination on whether an obvious goalscoring opportunity was denied.

Find it if I am wrong. Again, Reo-Coker's proximity to the play is the only plausible explanation as not even Villa is claiming that it wasn't a foul.

...and here you allude to Reo-Coker's proximity to the play as plausible explantion why the the expulsion was rescinded? Why would you refer to Reo-Coker's proximity if it were not to determine whether or not he would be in position to deny Torres a clear path to goal?

...or put another way: Why would you refer to Reo-Coker's proximity if it were not to determine whether or not he would was not a last defender who Torres may have had to get the ball by on his way to getting the ball in goal?


As it relates to your question: "The Laws" say -

under section -

Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines to Referees

- sub-section -
Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct

Denying a goal or a goal-scoring opportunity

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity:

the location and number of defenders

And here I add - The inference is that determination of where the offence was committed relative to other defenders will aid the referee in deciding if as fact there was (really) an obvious goal-scoring opportunity!

NB: Excerpt from FIFA's Preface to "The Law of the Game"

[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']While this year’s edition of the Laws of the Game features only[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']one amendment to the 2007/2008 edition in terms of substance,[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']the overall wording and structure has been reviewed and revised to[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']consolidate and reorganise the content for the sake of consistency,[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']simplifi cation and clarifi cation. Among the most notable changes[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']in this respect, some of the Decisions of the International Football[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']Association Board from last year’s edition of the Laws of the Game[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']are now either incorporated in the Law to which they were previously[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']appended or appear in the section now entitled “Interpretation of[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees”.[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'] With this new [/FONT][FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']title, the International Football Association Board [/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']wishes to underline [/FONT][FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']that, while the content of this section is [/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']intended to complement the [/FONT][FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']Laws of the Game themselves, its application is indeed a compulsory [/FONT][FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']requirement.[/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]

The comprehensive “Interpretation of
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Frutiger-Light','sans-serif']the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees” is sometimes refereed to as "The Laws".[/FONT]

[Karl]

i inserted only ONE scenario.....if you read it you would have seen that it is underlined and in red.

Sorry!

Anyway - I covered all bases in my reply.
Hey...The Massive are also looking and thinking on this!

[Paul Marin]

Ofcourse there is, the words "last defender" may not have been used...but the meaning says/is to ref "take note" of the positions of the last defender ...and more, it may be other defenders positions i.e. the ref may need to take note of defenders' positions relative to the person who the ref thinks has committed a foul to make a determination on whether an obvious goalscoring opportunity was denied.

...and here you allude to Reo-Coker's proximity to the play as plausible explantion why the the expulsion was rescinded? Why would you refer to Reo-Coker's proximity if it were not to determine whether or not he would be in position to deny Torres a clear path to goal?

...or put another way: Why would you refer to Reo-Coker's proximity if it were not to determine whether or not he would was not a last defender who Torres may have had to get the ball by on his way to getting the ball in goal?

And here I add - The inference is that determination of where the offence was committed relative to other defenders will aid the referee in deciding if as fact there was (really) an obvious goal-scoring opportunity!

Karl, your basic argument is flawed - "No foul, No red card, No penalty". However, you are trying to use the FA's decision to rescind the red card to say that there was no foul. They are not related. I checked on the media reports on this incident. My suggestion that Reo Coker's position had something to do with them rescinding the card was not the case. The REASON WHY the FA rescinded the Friedel red card is clearly stated as follows:

"The American was sent off during Villa's 5-0 defeat to Liverpool by referee Martin Atkinson when he brought down Fernando Torres as the Spanish striker closed on goal. However, the FA have agreed with Friedel that it was a 50-50 ball and, having committed himself, the goalkeeper had nowhere else to go when Torres reached the ball before him."

There you have it Karl - more proof that it was a foul and a reasonable explanation by the FA as to why the card was rescinded. However, they have not pointed to anything in the laws that support their decision and the referees association are at odds with them over this.

SO - NO FOUL? WRONG! NO RED CARD? DEBATABLE! NO PENALTY? WRONG!



Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-red-card.html

[Bricktop]

"The American was sent off during Villa's 5-0 defeat to Liverpool by referee Martin Atkinson when he brought down Fernando Torres as the Spanish striker closed on goal. However, the FA have agreed with Friedel that it was a 50-50 ball and, having committed himself, the goalkeeper had nowhere else to go when Torres reached the ball before him."

Uhh ooh. Now Karl gonna seh di FA don't know nuttin after him claim seh dem was a back him

[Mosiah]

"Having committed himself"...interesting!

"But he was motionless, after committing himself!" - Karl's likely response.

By the way, Karl, speaking about committing oneself...

[Gamma]

huh? "the massive are also ...." what?!! what that have to do with anything?

[Paul Marin]

Gamma - I have gotten more and more worried about my OWN aging as this "discussion" with Karl has gone on...if this is what age does to you...mi a go sta't fi fret!! But I think is jus' Karl an' di concrete ina 'im 'ead!!

[Karl]

Karl, your basic argument is flawed - "No foul, No red card, No penalty". However, you are trying to use the FA's decision to rescind the red card to say that there was no foul. They are not related. I checked on the media reports on this incident. My suggestion that Reo Coker's position had something to do with them rescinding the card was not the case. The REASON WHY the FA rescinded the Friedel red card is clearly stated as follows:

"The American was sent off during Villa's 5-0 defeat to Liverpool by referee Martin Atkinson when he brought down Fernando Torres as the Spanish striker closed on goal. However, the FA have agreed with Friedel that it was a 50-50 ball and, having committed himself, the goalkeeper had nowhere else to go when Torres reached the ball before him."

There you have it Karl - more proof that it was a foul and a reasonable explanation by the FA as to why the card was rescinded. However, they have not pointed to anything in the laws that support their decision and the referees association are at odds with them over this.

SO - NO FOUL? WRONG! NO RED CARD? DEBATABLE! NO PENALTY? WRONG!



Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-red-card.html

Did the FA (not the newspaper report?) say - Foul?

[Paul Marin]

Did the FA (not the newspaper report?) say - Foul?

Why would they have to? It was NEVER debated by Villa!!! NEWSFLASH: You, Tilla and Jangle are the only people on the PLANET who say it wasn't a foul. Even Villa don't dispute it and they had the most to gain.

NOW WAKE UP

[Gamma]

the original call was a foul, if they do not expressly SAY it wasn't a foul then it remains as it was initially called.

[Karl]

Why would they have to? It was NEVER debated by Villa!!! NEWSFLASH: You, Tilla and Jangle are the only people on the PLANET who say it wasn't a foul. Even Villa don't dispute it and they had the most to gain.

NOW WAKE UP

No Foul!
No Expulsion!
No Penalty!

...OK! The FA rules...and validate your stance...

but I stand by my assertions that it should have not been Foul! Expulsion! Penalty!

...and I am awake!

[Karl]

the original call was a foul, if they do not expressly SAY it wasn't a foul then it remains as it was initially called.

OK! OK!OK!
...but....

[Gamma]

FINALLY...epiphany!!!

[Paul Marin]

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwdddddddddddddddddddd Ittttttttttttttt Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa Ggggggggggooooooooooooooo Rrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!

WELL DONE KARL -- YOU FINALLY FINALLY HAVE GOTTEN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!